Susan Lindauer, author of Extreme Prejudice http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/, is the first CIA asset to have spoken out, under her own name and for the record, on Israeli complicity in 9/11, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the specific, detailed foreknowledge of the time, target, and means of the 9/11 attacks.

She has also exposed her first-hand knowledge of pre-war intelligence and negotiationsshowing that Iraq was willing to give the US “anything it asked” and that the war was therefore -from the perspective of US interests- not only utterly unnecessary, but wildly counterproductive. Lindauer’s evidence points strongly to 9/11 being a coup d’etat by hard-line Zionists determined to steer the US into a self-destructive war on Israel’s enemies.

[youtube]IthybCeFTjg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Transcript interview between Kevin Barrett and Susan Lindauer:

BarrettI understand that you had some 9/11 foreknowledge, but were actually busted for trying to explain to the Bush Administration through your cousin Andrew Card, that invading Iraq was insane, that the Iraqis were basically going to do anything we wanted anyway--they'll agree to anything for peace--and that there would be a terrible resistance and a terrible war if there was an invasion. And for that very accurate and prescient warning, they went after you.

LindauerWell, you have a very good grasp of this issue, I will tell you. It is a complicated story. I was one of the very few (CIA) assets covering Iraq before the war. And I had established contact with the Iraqi embassy at the United Nations in New York back in August of 1996. And for seven years before the invasion, I was what they call a "back channel" to Iraq on the question of terrorism. That was my foremost priority. This was covert in the sense that it was covert to the West. But the Iraqis were fully informed as to who I was and what I was doing and what my purpose was. My motivation was that I hated the United Nations sanctions. I hated the genocidal consequences and suffering for the Iraqi people, most truly and genuinely--that was very sincere. And they knew it. And both sides knew my politics. In fact, the CIA had come to me knowing my politics and said "hey, why don't you try to help us." They co-opted me--they did--but I agreed to be co-opted. We all understood each other. And that's very important for what happened.

BarrettThat's not necessarily a bad thing. There is a role for people who are intermediaries between warring parties and who try to make peace. And it sounds like that's what you were doing.

LindauerYes indeed. And both sides understood my politics, that I wanted to help end the sanctions. And the CIA was very adamant that Iraq had to meet certain criteria in order for that to happen. And my contribution from the very first days was on terrorism. Our team started what we called preliminary talks with Baghdad in November of 2000, two years before the United Nations got involved. Our team started back channel talks to get Iraq's agreement on the weapons inspections. And over the next fifteen months, my supervisor, Richard Fuisz (pronounced "fuse"), through talks at the Iraqi embassy, mostly with Iraq's ambassador Dr. Sayeed Hassan, and with other senior Iraqi diplomats, on what conditions Iraq would have to accept in order to resume the weapons inspections. And at that point we had begun to develop a comprehensive peace framework which extended great support to anti-terrorism. Iraq agreed to let the FBI come into Baghdad and operate a task force that would have authority--this was before 9/11 ever happened! Nine months before 9/11 happened, Iraq agreed to have the FBI come into Baghdad with the authority to conduct terrorism investigations, interview witnesses, make arrests. After 9/11, Iraq agreed to give financial records on al-Qaeda to the United States. BUT the United states didn't want to take the records.

BarrettIt makes you wonder why not.

LindauerIsn't that an interesting question.

BarrettIt leads me to (my next question): You apparently had some kind of foreknowledge of 9/11. Can you explain to us what that was?

LindauerYes. This is a very interesting thing, and I'm glad...I hope your audience will pay attention to this. We absolutely expected 9/11 to happen. And there's a subtlety here that I hope your audience will appreciate. In April and May of 2001 I was summoned to my CIA handler's office and told that I needed to confront the Iraqi diplomats at the United Nations, through my back channel, with a demand for any fragment of intelligence regarding airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. And over the summer, that progressed to a deep belief that there was going to be an airplane hijacking attack, and some sort of aerial strike, on the World Trade Center. We talked about this in our one-on-one meetings practically every week. Just so we are clear, this was not a one-time conversation. This was a major focus of our efforts. Richard (Fuisz, Lindauer's CIA handler) was very worried about it, very agitated about it, how Iraq must give us this intelligence. Now, I don't mean to patronize you, but I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of deniability. I do not think that Richard Fuisz knew all the details of 9/11. However, he knew enough. My book Extreme Prejudice goes into the conversations that we had in great detail. And he knew the timing of the attack. By August 2001, Richard was telling me not to go into New York City because this attack was immanent. And on the day of FBI Director Robert Mueller's confirmation hearings, which I think was August 2nd--in my book it's very clear, I've checked all the dates--Richard Fuisz told me that the attack was immanent. And I said, well, I'm going up to New York to ask my Iraqi sources about this again. And he said "Don't go to New York, it's too dangerous, I don't want you going there again." And I said "I'm just going up this weekend, and I promise I will not go back to New York." And that's how close this was. They knew a great deal. And what was interesting is that after 9/11, I get arrested, and he gets thirteen million dollars in payoffs. (laughs)

Barrett(laughing) Oh boy. That's amazing. They arrested you, because they were probably concerned about you revealing the contents of your conversations with Richard, among other things.

LindauerOh yes, absolutely. And the fact that there was a peace option on the table that had been developed over a two year period before the war, a comprehensive peace framework. It included cooperation on anti-terrorism; it included the weapons inspections, of course--you already knew that; and it included Iraq's commitment to donate economic reconstruction--donate is not the right word--to dedicate economic reconstruction contracts to United States corporations with preferential treatment, preferential contracts in telecommunications, health care, pharmaceuticals, and transportation. This was a comprehensive peace framework! We covered everything! We covered a lot. And nobody even knows about this!

BarrettThat's amazing. There have been general reports of this nature, including post-9/11, right up to the eve of the invasion, there have been reports that Saddam Hussein was willing to give the US basically everything it wanted to hold off the invasion.

LindauerYes. Yes.

BarrettThat leads to the question: Why do you think, given that you recognize just how insane this invasion was, how completely unnecessary--the Iraqis were caving as far as they had to cave anyway--what was the point?

LindauerYes, literally, Iraq said to me: "What is it the United States wants? Anything that the United States asks for, we will give them. Just tell us what it is!" When I was on a trip to Baghdad, they offered to buy one million American-made automobiles every year for ten years. And (an Iraqi diplomat) said to me, "Look, Susan, if ten years isn't enough, we'll make it twenty years."

BarrettYou know, Susan, you're kind of ruining Saddam Hussein's posthumous reputation as somebody who stood up to the U.S.!

LindauerHe was more harsh on terrorists than we were.

BarrettHe didn't get along with al-Qaeda, and he didn't get along with Islamists of any kind, including the Iranians.

LindauerThat's right.

BarrettYou would have thought that the U.S. would have just kept running him as an American puppet. He got his start as a CIA hit man, apparently.

LindauerYes indeed.

BarrettSo why, why this insane insistence on going to war with Iraq--a war that has killed one and a half million innocent Iraqis and destroyed that country. What was the purpose of it?

LindauerIt was so incredibly stupid. And 9/11...9/11 could have been used at the start...9/11 was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy, but 9/11 could have accomplished great good. Because right after 9/11 Iraq went into high mode of giving. They were offering us everything we wanted: Financial records on al-Qaeda, proof of a Middle Eastern link to what we used to call the inter-Arab group of terrorists, which was actually an amalgamation of several different terrorist factions, coalesced into al-Qaeda. They were willing to prove that there was a Middle Eastern link to the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and those included financial documents, bank records...we could have tracked the money that's financing terrorism around the world. Instead what we do is, we create an enemy. Because it looks better--the politicians could go grandstand. As a former (CIA) asset I can assure you, they don't actually do anything on terrorism. They give speeches. They go wave their hands in the parades. But they don't do anything to contribute to anti-terrorism efforts. But the people have been fooled by their showmanship and their grandstanding and their spectacle. It's like a circus performance now! In fact, before 9/11, there were 200 to 300 terrorists in the world who wanted to attack America. Now, after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq and after the war on Afghanistan, there are only about 2000 to 3000 individuals whose entire focus of life is revenge and coming into the United States and attacking us. That's only 3000 people. The way I look at it, this is like a high school auditorium that you could fill with the potential terrorists. That's it! This is an invention! We've made this up!

BarrettRight. Very well put. I've often explained to people that there was no real terrorist threat pre-9/11, and that for every one person pre-9/11 who was bent on doing harm to the US, there must be a great many today, because of all the terrible things that have gone on since 9/11.

LindauerYes.

BarrettSo the question then, is...is it just sheer total incompetence and stupidity and grandstanding and egotism--I'm sure all of that contributes to it, but---uh...well, frankly, Susan, my take on all of this is that 9/11 was a Mossad operation, that it was of course done through Cheney's office. There were no hijackings. The guys that they blamed for it were not terrorists at all. They weren't even on the planes. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these guys were on those planes, nor is there a shred of actual evidence that there were any hijackings. Instead, we had a military operation that was essentially a Zionist coup d'état by the Likkud faction that wanted to destroy Iraq so it would never be a threat to Israel. A prosperous Iraq, allied to the US, would actually be terrible for Israel. That's why they wouldn't take the deals that you were brokering. Care to comment?

LindauerI think that you are--I do believe in the hijackings, but I believe in everything else that you have just said. One of the things that came out right after 9/11: I've often been asked by people what my CIA handler Richard Fuisz's source was for the 9/11 attack. And he told me briefly, he let it slip. Immediately after the attack, when we were all in a state of shock, he said to me...the first building had collapsed, but it was before the second building collapsed. This is a very important time frame. He made reference to video tape, which by the way was not released to the public until the next day, but right after 9/11 Richard Fuisz already knows about this video tape! Right after the attack--the first building has collapsed, the second one is still standing--and we're both talking in the living room, we're both shouting--I'm in my living room, he's in his living room, and we're shouting at the televisions--and he blurts out to me: "Susan, how many times do you think a camera is cued up waiting for a car accident to occur?" He said, "What do you think are the odds that those two people were just standing on the sidewalk with a video camera waiting patiently for the plane to hit the building?" And he said, "Those are Mossad agents. They knew that the World Trade Center was about to get hit, and they were waiting there for it to happen so they could record it and put it out in the media." Now this is before it has even come out in the media. He identifies them as Mossad agents, and I believe--I'm convinced--that that was the source of our knowledge of al-Qaeda. But what you guys don't know, which I will throw out to you, which comes out in my book, is that from April and May of 2001 onwards, Richard Fuisz instructed me to threaten the Iraqis with war. Now everybody assumes that the war stuff came after 9/11. But it didn't. They had decided months before 9/11 ever happened that as soon as this attack occurred, this would be the motivation for the war. So they absolutely knew that this attack was coming. They knew that it was going to be in late August or September. And that opens up a whole new dynamic proving what you have just said: That it was a Mossad conspiracy, that there was complicity...maybe that's a better word, complicity...I'm going to go a little softer on the language than you. Mossad complicity.

BarrettI would argue that it's a little more than complicity--that the demolitions of the three tallest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions required immense skill and military specialization and so on...

LindauerOh yes, when I say complicity, I include that in it. Yes. I believe in the detonations. In fact...do I have time to tell you one story before break?

BarrettTell it, go for it.

LindauerWhile I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don't want to hurt his reputation. He's close to retirement, he's going to have a pension--they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect. He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o' clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o' clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said "I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived." He said "we know the addresses." We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.

Last edited by Phaeton on Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music""All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music""All our science measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - yet, in contemporary consensus, its the most precious thing we have"

This seems to be moving forward a few degrees. I skipped the first few paragraphs, and skipped right to the heart of it. Posted here, is a little less then half of the article at Veterans Today. If this interests you at all, you might want to read the whole article. It's a pretty good one. (Link at bottom of post.)

My name is Susan Lindauer. I was one of the very few U.S. Intelligence Assets covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations in New York from 1995 to 2003. As a back channel, I started talks for the Lockerbie Trial with Libya’s senior diplomats. I also conducted preliminary talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraq’s Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan, as part of a larger, comprehensive peace framework.

I submit this sworn affidavit as evidence of criminal actions by President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. This affidavit will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that those officials in the Bush Administration knowingly and deliberately practiced “command failure” to thwart the 9/11 attack. It will prove that those officials hyped a War with Iraq as a probable outcome of the attack, exciting motive and opportunity for an orphan intelligence team to lay explosives through the Towers to maximize damage and guarantee the outcome. After the attack, White House officials compounded the crime of mass murder with perjury and obstruction of justice in the Federal Courts and the 9/11 Commission to a degree that would be punishable offenses for ordinary citizens.

I also accuse Larry Silverstein of profiteering from government lies about 9/11 to a degree that qualified as insurance fraud. Together with government officials, Silverstein committed multiple acts of perjury in the Federal Court of Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey, the Southern District of New York — and obstruction of justice to protect the financial profits of his insurance scam. This was done with full knowledge of the consequence — that a fellow American was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment on a military base without trial or hearing, and threats of forcible drugging in prison, as a judicial effort to destroy knowledge of the CIA’s advance knowledge of 9/11 — thus safeguarding Silverstein’s profits. I know, because I was that American.

Any ordinary citizen would face prison for Silverstein’s crimes — and their attorneys would face disbarment —whereas Silverstein and White House officials got off scott free.

Above all, to understand why 9/11 was an “inside job,” it’s critical to understand that its completion resulted from opposing forces colliding against each other — one side working aggressively to stop the attack, and the other undercutting every proactive move.

I, Susan Lindauer, hereby swear under oath that I first learned of the 9/11 Conspiracy from my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, in mid-April, 2001.

In April, I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Great Falls, Virginia. We met weekly anyway. On this occasion, he rang my home and asked me to come straight away. He inquired when I planned my next trip to the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations in New York. He wanted to talk before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

This does not strike me as unusual. My back channel to Iraq and Libya existed to communicate messages back and forth from Washington, because those countries had no official ties with the United States. Most significantly, my team kept a special line open for intelligence on terrorist activities that Tripoli or Baghdad might need to share with the West. Even under sanctions and global isolation, the importance of intelligence to block terrorism was recognized as a necessary exemption to U.S. foreign policy isolating Iraq.

And so I visited Dr. Fuisz immediately. He instructed me to demand that Libya and Iraq must hand over any intelligence regarding conspiracies involving airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. He insisted that I must warn Iraqi diplomats Baghdad would suffer a major military offensive— worse than anything Iraq had suffered before— if the U.S. discovered Saddam’s government had possessed such intelligence on airplane hijackings and failed to notify us through my back channel.

Admittedly, I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. So on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz’s message. I asked diplomats to send cables to Baghdad and Tripoli, watching for possible airplane conspiracies. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against Iraq or Libya.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how Iraqi diplomats (only) had responded to his threat. I admitted that I stopped short of delivering his full message. But I assured him that I had requested Iraq’s cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. In all of our years together, I recall no other time that he lost his temper and shouted at me. He stormed up and down the conference room, letting loose a tirade punctuated with colorful obscenities. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must return to New York immediately. I must not be polite. I must tell Iraqi diplomats exactly what he said. “The United States would bomb Baghdad back into the Stone Age, worse than they’ve ever been bombed before, if they discovered a terrorist conspiracy involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings and failed to notify us. They would lose everything. We would destroy them.”

There was one more point that Dr. Fuisz was adamant I must communicate: “Those threats originated at the highest levels of government,” and I quote, “above the CIA Director and the Secretary of State.”

Those were his exact words. And it was not ambiguous. It could only mean President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

As of that conversation, there was no doubt in my mind that the President’s Office and the CIA were fully cognizant of the existence of the conspiracy. Dr. Fuisz claimed the CIA lacked “actionable intelligence” to stop the attack. (That’s nuts and bolts—who, day, flight #, airport hub). But the conspiracy itself was known.

Dr. Fuisz was not pacified until I promised to deliver his message with all the force that he communicated. He expressed tremendous satisfaction that I would make sure

Iraqi diplomats understood the warning came from above the CIA itself—not from him or me— but from the highest levels of government “above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”

In early May, 2001, I returned to New York and delivered that message exactly as he dictated.

Tension built throughout the summer of 2001. Practically every week, we discussed the 9/11 strike. By June, our focus turned to the World Trade Center. Our belief in that target was very precise. We believed the attack would finish the cycle started by Ramzi Youssef in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. And we fully expected that airplanes would be seized by hijackers and used as trajectory weapons to strike the Towers. No other target was ever discussed — not the Pentagon or the White House, only the World Trade Center.

We also discussed the possibility that a miniature thermo-nuclear device might raze the buildings. Throughout the summer of 2001, we were convinced the Twin Towers would be demolished, using a combination of explosives with the airplanes. That’s why Dr. Fuisz warned me to stay out of New York in August. Nobody worried that I might get hurt if the Towers collapsed. The CIA worried about exposure to military grade contaminants in the dust or air, including possible radiation.

Throughout June and July of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to push hard for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Iraq. After our first conversation in April, he never asked about Libya at all. Over and over again, Dr. Fuisz demanded that I threaten Baghdad — not Libya — if the strike occurred.

Every police officer will tell you a crime requires motive and opportunity. I know from direct conversations with Dr. Fuisz that six (6) months before 9/11, a cabal of pro-War neo-Conservatives at the top of the government was already prepping the Intelligence Community to accept War with Iraq as the inevitable consequence of the strike. That created “motive” and plenty of advance opportunity for any pro-War intelligence team to do the unthinkable — wire the Towers with explosives, to guarantee maximum destruction and secure the desired outcome of War. That’s what I’m convinced happened. The evidence certainly supports that conclusion.

As of May, 2001, Iraqi diplomats proposed an immediate solution to the 9/11 conspiracy. As of February, 2001, Baghdad agreed to allow an FBI Task Force into Iraq — to monitor radical Jihadis who might attempt to exploit Baghdad’s weakened central authority to launch terrorist strikes on its neighbors. The CIA made this demand through my back channel following the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in October, 2000. From the opening days of the Bush Administration, Iraq agreed to show good will towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

When confronted with the 9/11 scenario, Iraq placated the U.S. masterfully: “Perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for the FBI to start its work —” the diplomat suggested. “If the United States is very worried, the FBI should come right away.”

The world knows that never happened. Over the summer, Iraq continued to invite the FBI, as U.S. warnings about 9/11 persisted. And I expressed frustration for the slow learning curve of the Bush Administration, which felt unnatural after eight years of rapid and decisive policy-making by the Clinton White House.

The 1990s have been called the Halycon Years of U.S Intelligence. From my perspective as an Asset, the arrival of George Bush felt like driving a high performance Maserati after some fool pours lower grade oil into the engine— and it starts clunking and sputtering and seizing up. You don’t know if the car will keep running until the mechanic’s ready to work on the problem— or if the car will die on the street.

That was Republican Policy on anti-terrorism before 9/11. Our problem was the CIA had to keep driving that car no matter what. And we had to block terrorist threats against the U.S, regardless of whether the White House was responsive to warnings about those threats— or not.

Before 9/11, the answer was “not.” I was not alone in feeling frustrated Throughout June and July, Dr. Fuisz beseeched me not to filter intelligence on the impending aerial strike on the World Trade Center. During our meetings, he would painstakingly explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of actionable intelligence on these airplane hijackings, whether it made sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back. He appeared to be frantically searching for anything to pre-empt the strike. In fairness, a significant faction of CIA and Defense Intelligence urgently tried to stop 9/11.

Tensions accelerated to a head on August 2nd, the day of the Senate hearings on Robert Mueller’s nomination to head the FBI.

My heated conversation with Dr. Fuisz about Mueller’s confirmation accounts for why I recall the timing of events so precisely in the weeks before 9/11. I can pinpoint my actions to the day of the week because of this hearing.

In our opinion, Robert Mueller was such a political animal that we argued he would throw the FBI investigation into this future attack on airplane hijackings used to strike the World Trade Center! He’d do whatever was most helpful to politicians!

“You want me to crash the nomination hearings this afternoon? Lay a little truth on Congress?” I said to Dr. Fuisz.

“No. No, it’s too late for that.”

“Too late for the hearings? Or too late to stop the attack?”

“Both, I think.”

“You think it’s that soon???”

“I think it could be.”

I was aghast. The phone got quiet for a moment.

“We can’t do nothing, Richard.”

“Of course not.”

“I’m going to New York,” I said. “I’ll ask the Iraqis again. I’ll push them hard.”

“What? When are you going?” I recall vividly the alarm saturating his words.

“It’s just the weekend. The day after tomorrow. I’ll be up and back. I’ll stop by your office on Monday. I understand what you guys want. I’ve been pushing Iraqi diplomats all summer for any fragment of intelligence on this attack. They know what’s up. I will check if something’s come in from Baghdad.”

August 4th would be my last trip to the Iraqi Embassy and the Libya House before that fateful September morning. That’s something I deeply regretted for many years.

As it happens, there were extraordinary reasons for Dr. Fuisz’s concern. The “chatter” between terrorist cells monitored by the National Security Agency reached unprecedented levels by May 2001, which accelerated until September 11, 2001.

George Tenet

The U.S. Intelligence Community buzzed with warnings. On July 10, 2001, CIA Director, George Tenet, was so alarmed by a classified debriefing on the threat from Al Qaeda that he marched straight to the White House. A top CIA analyst suggested a major attack was coming in the next few weeks. Apparently Tenet wasted no time alerting Condoleezza Rice in writing. He also brought along one of the CIA officers tracking

Bin Laden, who gave Rice an oral debriefing. Former Anti-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke strongly endorsed the importance of the report. The CIA officer who gave the briefing said the nation had to “go on a war footing now.”

On Friday, Sept. 7, the State Department issued a worldwide alert— “American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to [Osama bin Laden’s] al Qaeda organization.” That report cited intelligence from May, 2001 as suggesting an attack was imminent. The State Department bulletin warned “Al Qaeda does not distinguish between official and civilian targets.”

As one of the participants in those discussions, I am ready to swear under oath that U.S. Intelligence anticipated the attack in all of its precise detail. Intelligence predicted airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center—not the Pentagon or the White House.

What was missing was actionable intelligence to stop the conspiracy — who were the terrorists, how many, which airport, what airlines, what flight numbers. I was looking for a name. A number. A fragment. All summer Dr. Fuisz pleaded with me exhaustively to bring him anything at all. He swore that if I could get it, the NSA and CIA would bust overtime to flesh it out, and make sense of it, so that we could stop the attack.

I will prove now why action in August, 2001 (to maximize or stall the attack) was so much bigger than ever reported. .

PROOF OF A SECOND TEAM

By August, our hunt was becoming frenetic. I have physical proof that a second intelligence team was also ferreting for intelligence on the 9/11 conspiracy the weekend of August 4-5. During a speaking tour through Japan before the release of my book, “Extreme Prejudice,” I spoke extensively about our team’s aggressive actions in the critical week after Robert Mueller’s Senate nomination hearing.

Low and behold, when I returned from Japan, I discovered a copy of the original newsprint edition of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001— pinned by a rose quartz paper weight on my desk next to my computer, so that it would not get thrown away. The faded 10 year old newspaper was addressed to my boss at the street address of my consulting job in Silver Spring, Maryland during the summer of 2001.

That’s where I was working on August 2nd when I phoned Dr. Fuisz on the day of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing. The Wall Street Journal proves that several weeks before 9/11 somebody had gone to the trouble of tracking down where my phone call to Dr. Fuisz originated. That individual “visited” my office, no doubt seeking any scribbles or papers that I might have left around my desk, which might provide clues of what our team had discovered about the conspiracy so far. It’s standard practice to grab a newspaper off a desk in situations like that, as an accurate snapshot with the company’s name, address and date, etc. It’s a “proof of life.”

Rober S. Mueller

The July 30, 2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal would have been tossed in the trash weeks before the official 9/11 investigation kicked off. Ergo, it could only have been grabbed the week of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing.

Yes, it indicates another intelligence team picked the locks to get into the office — (and tapped our phones). There’s a time when that sort of thing is necessary. And this would be it! I’m grateful for it. Our team urgently desired as much help as we could get. This was a race to stop massive violence against the United States — not a competition. All of us gravely worried over what we all knew was coming. Intelligence teams are structured to function independently and overlap, but (most of the time) we’re on the same side, with the same shared goals.

On that note, I take umbrage at the lies that were invented by The 9/11 Commission over our so-called intelligence failures. Prior to 9/11, the Intelligence Community was accustomed to functioning on a superior and pro-active footing. U.S. Intelligence had rapid fire reflexes, and a reputation for attracting brilliant case officers. These were creative strategists and problem solvers. They were the best and the brightest.

The Intelligence Community was at the top of its game. It’s just not monolithic, like most civilians imagine. Teams are separate and joined to different factions, with different objectives and motivations.

That’s where 9/11 went to hell.

9/11 was not the result of mistakes. It was a deliberate execution. Though 90 percent of U.S. Intelligence tried to stop the attack, the compartmentalized structure of the intelligence community made it possible for a minority 10 percent to undercut all the good work and proactive planning of the others.

That’s what I believe happened on 9/11.

9/11 was an Inside Job that played a magician’s trick on the American people. All eyes were on the left hand — that would be airplanes crashing into the Towers — But the real action was done by the right hand. The controlled demolition of the Towers using a combination of military grade explosives.

There, I bow to explosives experts on the type of explosive devices and materials. There has been some excellent research on thermatic bombs, which produce such heat intensity as to melt steel, and create dust from a sulfur compound. [More recent research, however, especially by T. Mark Hightower, suggests that thermite / thermate / nanothermite could not have been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers.] Throughout the summer, we discussed the use of a miniature thermo-nuclear device. It could have been a combination.

The point I must underscore is that our discussions from June, July and August always presumed explosives would be used in combination with the airplane hijackings to destroy the Towers. I recall conversations where and how somebody could locate the necessary explosives inside the United States—even a nuke. How those explosives could be stolen from a military base in driving range to New York City. We always forecast the total destruction of the Towers in the attack, and predicted “mass human casualties.”

9/11 fit our scenario in all detail. And so, I insist, 9/11 was not an intelligence failure. There was active concern. Despite those efforts, it succeeded because a minority decided to smash any progress by the majority to thwart the attack. They were incited to act by wild leadership pronouncements that maximum destruction would provoke War with Iraq. Threats of war created motive for a second team to do the unthinkable.

The leadership egged them on. There are so many fail-safes and trip wires in place to trigger pre-emptive responses that it required a leadership decision to subvert the process.DELIBERATE COMMAND FAILURES IN AUGUST

On my last trip to New York on August 4, 2001, Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands. They’d been warned of the consequences for months if something awful happened. Retribution would be swift and severe. Nevertheless, even with his ear to the ground, Saddam and his vast network of Iraqi Mukhabarat could locate no actionable intelligence to give us. Saddam could not find it!

Instead, diplomats insisted the U.S. was the only source chattering about this airplane hijacking conspiracy. All intelligence reports originated from us, they claimed! Diplomats protested that Washington was demanding cooperation from Baghdad, yet took no action to send the FBI. If the CIA believed the conspiracy was real, we had options. Baghdad locked on to Washington’s failure to act as undercutting our sincerity.

After the Pentagon tell retired Navy SEAL, and author of the upcoming book "No Easy Day", that he violated the non-disclosure agreements, a legal expert warns that the book's publishers may also face the wrath of the US military.

All posts and media uploads are expressed opinions of the contributing members and
are not representative of or endorsed by the owners or employees of Disclose.tv.

This site may contain copyrighted material. Members may make such material available
in an effort to advance the awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights,
economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We
believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law.